Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mikey T.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82
1
13 years, I think this is a new high score. 

2
I'm still amazed that this discussion is on going.  One does not need an expert to gain knowledge.

So am I.

I take it you never went to school.

Or read a book?

Do you just listen to yourself?

It shows.

So a school is an expert?  A book is an expert?  If I was home schooled, would that make my parents experts in Math, Science, Language, Arts, etc?
Notice the failure to understand the difference between need and can use.  Timmy is on a roll today.

3
This meltdown has to be one of the most epic I've seen here in a while. Do you know what "subject matter expert" means?
No he doesn't, clearly.  Or what required means, or trial and error, and consistently uses looser instead of loser for that matter.  He has no clue, expects us to believe he was a teacher of some sort, probably like Kent Hovid claiming to be a science teacher.  Uses words all the time with no understanding as to their meaning.  But putting my ad-hominem attacks aside, does Timmy even know what the argument is about anymore?  He seems so far into this meltdown that he can't see he is quoting things and then screaming they aren't using the phrases that they are.  Like subject matter experts, or when he did it for Yuri being the first expert but then completely going off the rails when Jack quoted him saying it.  It's back a few pages, I can only retain so much stupid so I have forgotten most of the finer details. 


4
If you follow the logic of Timmy's argument, you cannot ever know anything because you can't get experts.  With his argument, someone, somewhere has to be the first expert but there can't be one since there would have been no expert to teach them.  He also thinks that utilizing any technology is akin to relying on an expert.  I'm sure that some expert who made a device for specific reason A and has no clue about reason B that it can also be used to discover or aquire evidence of, doesn't qualify as an expert teaching you. 
Like if telescopes are invented to see things far off on the Earth.  The supposed optical expert, that made the first one maybe had no care about the other planets, but made it for the military.  Then telescopes are used to view the heavens, does that optical expert now get credited as a planetary expert?


Iím afraid thatís your warped understanding of what Iím saying. How you can conclude that is a classic example of your complete misunderstanding of the situation.

You fail to understand the incremental and at times chaotic way knowledge arose and the way in which advancements were made and how novices can become experts. The tradition of the apprentice and master is a good example of this. Experts are not magically created out of thin air instead they are a product if dedication.

You appear to suggest that the difference between expert and non expert is digital. Like many organic quantities  its analogue in nature existing on a normal distribution.

Today to become an expert in a field normally demand a period of education followed by situations were experience can be gained. Itís no secret.

Could do better
D-
Make up you mind already.  Now you have completely reversed course.  Great, you agree with what I have been saying all along, experts are not the only way to gain knowledge. 
You get an F, for completely changing your stance yet trying to act as though it's everyone else's fault for "misunderstanding" your position.  Still can't admit you were wrong though.  This reversal of yours here is a perfect example of narcissism and dishonesty.

Are you actually for real?

This is what we are discussing.

The only thing you could possibly do to understand the shape of the Earth is to study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say the Earth is.

Do try and keep up.
Notice how in that very statement it says subject matter experts, yet you continue to rail against Jack saying he added it.  Seems like you are blinded by emotions a bit, but sure I am not keeping up.
Also notice how it says the only way you could possibly do to understand ...  is study from the current literature on what the subject matter experts say.  So you are now back to saying the only way to understand is by getting the information from an expert.  This is wrong.  It sets up a logical argument that cannot be since there would have to be a first expert.  Did they appear by magic?  No.  This is why you are wrong.   But keep going, I get good laughs from explaining your arguments to fellow engineers and friends.  We especially like to make fun of your stance on trial and error learning.
Please stay in this emotion filled lie fest of failure.  The squirm is entertaining.

5
No Timmy isn't going to admit to being wrong about anything.  He is going to continue to try to spin his point to attempt to try to say he was saying the same thing all along.  Gaslighting takes time, small steps, but all of his attempts to lie and twist the story have been utter failures.  All he had to do when he realized that he was wrong, way back at the beginning of this bonfire of stupidity was to admit it and move on.  All of this mess could have been avoided and less people would be aware of how moronic Timmy is.

6
If you follow the logic of Timmy's argument, you cannot ever know anything because you can't get experts.  With his argument, someone, somewhere has to be the first expert but there can't be one since there would have been no expert to teach them.  He also thinks that utilizing any technology is akin to relying on an expert.  I'm sure that some expert who made a device for specific reason A and has no clue about reason B that it can also be used to discover or aquire evidence of, doesn't qualify as an expert teaching you. 
Like if telescopes are invented to see things far off on the Earth.  The supposed optical expert, that made the first one maybe had no care about the other planets, but made it for the military.  Then telescopes are used to view the heavens, does that optical expert now get credited as a planetary expert?


Iím afraid thatís your warped understanding of what Iím saying. How you can conclude that is a classic example of your complete misunderstanding of the situation.

You fail to understand the incremental and at times chaotic way knowledge arose and the way in which advancements were made and how novices can become experts. The tradition of the apprentice and master is a good example of this. Experts are not magically created out of thin air instead they are a product if dedication.

You appear to suggest that the difference between expert and non expert is digital. Like many organic quantities  its analogue in nature existing on a normal distribution.

Today to become an expert in a field normally demand a period of education followed by situations were experience can be gained. Itís no secret.

Could do better
D-
Make up you mind already.  Now you have completely reversed course.  Great, you agree with what I have been saying all along, experts are not the only way to gain knowledge. 
You get an F, for completely changing your stance yet trying to act as though it's everyone else's fault for "misunderstanding" your position.  Still can't admit you were wrong though.  This reversal of yours here is a perfect example of narcissism and dishonesty. 

7
If you follow the logic of Timmy's argument, you cannot ever know anything because you can't get experts.  With his argument, someone, somewhere has to be the first expert but there can't be one since there would have been no expert to teach them.  He also thinks that utilizing any technology is akin to relying on an expert.  I'm sure that some expert who made a device for specific reason A and has no clue about reason B that it can also be used to discover or aquire evidence of, doesn't qualify as an expert teaching you. 
Like if telescopes are invented to see things far off on the Earth.  The supposed optical expert, that made the first one maybe had no care about the other planets, but made it for the military.  Then telescopes are used to view the heavens, does that optical expert now get credited as a planetary expert?

8
Watch the Sun set.  Look at a ball close up.  Plot the stars, ie draw their pathways, use structures to mark the stars locations (like Stonehenge) Look at the moon, Observe it long enough to notice how the shadows move on it. 
How much of technology do we have to abandon so you won't say it's expert help?  If we can use anything not in orbit, call a friend who lives far away, describe your sunset while it is not sunset for them.  Look at the other planets with a telescope, notice that they are round. 

There, experiments provided without being designed by an expert, some without any modern technology. 

Now, where did the first expert come from?

You tell me where the first expert came from.

Do you actually think Stonehenge and all the other many stone circles in Europe where not built by experts over 5000 years ago? Experts in all sorts of areas existed during that period and before. Go into the British Museum in London and look at the beautifully crafted artefacts in stone and ivory that were carved by experts 50,000 , 60,000 and more years ago.

Do you think stones that are many many tons in weight could be cut and transported across the country from the Preseli Hills in south-west Wales to Salisbury Plain, the bluestones, without many kinds of expertise being involved?...and those were the smaller stones!

OK
You are looking at the stars and the moon, doing some drawings, then what?

All you have given is some vague description of some night time activity with no detail. Im not sure how you building a 'henge' would accomplish much! not that you could.

What actually are you trying to prove?

Experts in all sorts of things exist today.
Experts in all sorts of different things existed a long time ago.

How do you think the concept of barter came about?

One person who was an expert hunter could trade meat or fish for an expertly made arrow for his bow. Have you any idea how difficult it is to make an arrow that flies straight? The whole concept of need drove specialisms and brought about people becoming experts in many different things.

Thats why we have no need for, as Jack Black calls them, experts in the shape of the world. Everyone knows it's a globe there is no question mark over it. BUT there are other kinds of experts who because of what they do have that knowledge. Those would be the people to ask.

To prove what shape the world is without recourse to these experts or existing expert knowledge is impossible. Give it a go and see how you get on. Jack Black knows he is wrong and has tried desperately to muddy the waters, but to no avail.
So critical thinking about evidence is not a thing for you.  If I wanted to find out the shape of the thing I was standing on, or at least a basic understanding of what it most likely is with no expert telling me to do things, I may get an understanding by doing those night time "activities", or observational experiments. 
I brought up Stonehenge as an example of building structures to mark star positions to assist in tracking.  Also no, the first person to try to lay out the stone piles and wood poles that would be replaced by the huge stones at Stonehenge didn't have an expert to tell them what to do, they developed the techniques to track the stars in their own way. 

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atlas Shrugged
« on: August 02, 2021, 04:37:36 AM »
There is a balance that must be maintained between the good of society and the good of the individual.  They aren't mutually exclusive but they are not the same thing either.  Freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor givesrise to one half of the drive to iinnovation.  The other half is there has to be people to utilize that innovation, society.  Society needs to be strong enough to keep up with the ambitions of the ultra driven or both die off.  Taxation is necessary theft, up until the tax is unnecessary.

10
Watch the Sun set.  Look at a ball close up.  Plot the stars, ie draw their pathways, use structures to mark the stars locations (like Stonehenge) Look at the moon, Observe it long enough to notice how the shadows move on it. 
How much of technology do we have to abandon so you won't say it's expert help?  If we can use anything not in orbit, call a friend who lives far away, describe your sunset while it is not sunset for them.  Look at the other planets with a telescope, notice that they are round. 

There, experiments provided without being designed by an expert, some without any modern technology. 

Now, where did the first expert come from? 

11
Again, in no way have I been anti-expert.  I have repeatedly reiterated that your support of the claim that the ONLY way to gain understanding is from experts.  I'm also not upset, I just enjoy pressing foolish people into self destruction.  You have played the fool very nicely, thank you.  You are wrong.  You also don't get to choose who makes you look like an idiot, I choose to do so, you do your part an continue to be the fool. 
So you have nothing I see to offer proof for your claims that only experts can teach you things then, we will just highlight that failure again then.  Are you going to continue to dance and strawman, or are you going to act... you know what,, never-ending that, fools only really know how to be fools.  So more entertainment for me.

Hows it hanging man? as for choice the only choice you have is just how foolish you want to make yourself look.
Why do you people keep on about men made of straw?

I fail to see how the 'Strawman"  logical fallacy is applicable in this case. Perhaps with your knowledge of argument structure combined with your powers of logic you could explain it to me.
So lets see, what do you think my point of contention was for this entire disagreement?  The base of it.  I have said many times it was you saying Experts were the ONLY way to obtain understanding.  You keep trying to say we are anti-expert, this is a lie.  You, lying about my position so you can argue against that lie is a strawman.  You do this quite a lot, just like scepti, interestingly in quite similar ways. 
But you wont get it, you can't get it.  You are a narcissist, you cannot admit to anything that could make you have to face the fact that you may be wrong and are not important, at all really. 
Your lesson is complete, do you have more questions?  I hate trying to teach morons, but if I must I will.

You and Jack both are the Kings of Straw.  Donít believe me, go read your posts , you for example use classic Stawmans the whole time. Your last post for example is a Strawman exemplar. Let me explain.

You decide Iím a narcissist, then attack me on that basis. Classic Strawman make something up and attack that.

If you read your posts time and time again you argue that experts are not required. Make your mind up.

I have been consistent throughout.

I supported a claim made by B, Jack decided to refute it by saying he could use experiments and observations. I asked Jack what those experiments and observations were! And I keep asking him and he keeps avoiding revealing them!

Tell me how the hell can that be considered a Strawman! As I said you make things up all the time. That makes you a hypocrite!

Chew on that.
Do you know what required means?   I know reading comprehension is hard for you, but at least take the time to look up definitions of words you are going to hang your arguments on.
I explained pretty well why you are a narcissist.  You have exhibited the traits time and time again.  Pointing out that you are something is NOT a strawman.  I guess you need to look that up too.  Gaslighting now huh.  More evidence of narcissism. 
Read what I said again moron.  If you lie about what I am saying like I am anti expert or that experts are never used, and then argue that you can use experts, that is a strawman.  I have been consistent, you are trying to claim I have changed my point all based on you not knowing what the word required means.  Pretty narcissistic. 

12
Again, in no way have I been anti-expert.  I have repeatedly reiterated that your support of the claim that the ONLY way to gain understanding is from experts.  I'm also not upset, I just enjoy pressing foolish people into self destruction.  You have played the fool very nicely, thank you.  You are wrong.  You also don't get to choose who makes you look like an idiot, I choose to do so, you do your part an continue to be the fool. 
So you have nothing I see to offer proof for your claims that only experts can teach you things then, we will just highlight that failure again then.  Are you going to continue to dance and strawman, or are you going to act... you know what,, never-ending that, fools only really know how to be fools.  So more entertainment for me.

Hows it hanging man? as for choice the only choice you have is just how foolish you want to make yourself look.
Why do you people keep on about men made of straw?

I fail to see how the 'Strawman"  logical fallacy is applicable in this case. Perhaps with your knowledge of argument structure combined with your powers of logic you could explain it to me.
So lets see, what do you think my point of contention was for this entire disagreement?  The base of it.  I have said many times it was you saying Experts were the ONLY way to obtain understanding.  You keep trying to say we are anti-expert, this is a lie.  You, lying about my position so you can argue against that lie is a strawman.  You do this quite a lot, just like scepti, interestingly in quite similar ways. 
But you wont get it, you can't get it.  You are a narcissist, you cannot admit to anything that could make you have to face the fact that you may be wrong and are not important, at all really. 
Your lesson is complete, do you have more questions?  I hate trying to teach morons, but if I must I will.

13
Again, in no way have I been anti-expert.  I have repeatedly reiterated that your support of the claim that the ONLY way to gain understanding is from experts.  I'm also not upset, I just enjoy pressing foolish people into self destruction.  You have played the fool very nicely, thank you.  You are wrong.  You also don't get to choose who makes you look like an idiot, I choose to do so, you do your part an continue to be the fool. 
So you have nothing I see to offer proof for your claims that only experts can teach you things then, we will just highlight that failure again then.  Are you going to continue to dance and strawman, or are you going to act... you know what,, never-ending that, fools only really know how to be fools.  So more entertainment for me.

14
This discussion/argument has run its course as itís looking like you will never ever reveal the secret non secret experiments that you claim you can do.

In an argument when one person say a thing is possible and the other says itís, not is normally resolved by the person who says it is possible revealing what it is!

You keep resisting exposing what your secret non secret experiment is.
WhyÖ.. because there isnít one.

You spin off in great tangents missing the point in every one while even stopping to consult Wikipedia, the great online Expert!

Experimentation by expert researchers that involves looking for something new like a vaccine will of course involve trials and experiments that often will end up in a fruitless blind alley. As working on the edge of human knowledge is not a simple affair with easy answers. Nor can they just look it up in Wikipedia. Cutting edge research is a far cry from you stumbling around using trial and error on a problem whoís solution is well known and in the public domain. To try and compare the two situations is just another example of your farcical thinking. You donít operate on the edge of human knowledge. Everything you deal with is known and understood with answers all provided by the many many specialised experts and therefore there is no need of trial and error.

The only piece of original knowledge discovered by you and known to no other is possibly the diameter of the mole on your backside. Quite possible Bly you made the measurement by trial and error.

You debate as though you are an authority, while at the same time denying the place of expert knowledge and authority. In reality you are an authority on nothing.

Just like a flat earther who has no Hope of ever proving the earth flat or producing their mythical FE map YOU will never be able to prove your point. All you can do is shout your claim ever louder without ever revealing what it actually is.
In other words you have failed.

What has become clear during this argument is the warped perception people appear to have about knowledge and itís acquisition. Some give the impression that they have unique knowledge or are somehow able to validate any item of knowledge rather than accepting through learning. Most knowledge particularly in the area is science just has to be accepted on the basis of the evidence that is provided. No one has the ability for example to deny scientifically the existence of gravity waves. Nor has anyone the resources to confirm their existence. Itís just one of the many pieces of scientific knowledge that has to be accepted.

If Jack Black had an experiment and observations that could prove his point he would have revealed it long before now. That fact alone proves he is an utter fraud.
So much wrong here.  When I get back to a computer I may try to explain.  This is a just whole lot of Timmy butthurt.
You never substantiated the claim you supported and you cried and cried about Jack and whined for him to prove you were wrong with an experiment.  You cried about him having the burden of proof when he disagreed with your claim.  You basically took a small mistake of supporting an illogical claim and turned it into a raging bonfire of stupid.  Just couldn't overcome the narcissism enough to just say, oops you were wrong.  Nope you just couldn't do it, can't admit defeat, must continually focus on Jack.

15
You haven't been able to counter JB's clearly laid out logical argument. Until you can do that, you have nothing. You're just being obnoxious.
This.

16
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
It beggars belief. Just because you pulled a few frames and fiddled around how do you know the results you achieved were the best achievable?
Getting the best stills from video starts with selecting the best video settings from your camera along with establishing a good work flow. Did you do that? Interlaced or progressive? How about data rate?and codec or did you just guess! Having someone who does not have much of a clue I can only imagine the result. While the stills YOU ended up with may have looked passable according to YOU, for a video expert who knew what they were doing they would have looked a mess especially when starting with pretty average quality video.
To try and prove a point by using personal experience is pointless.
One you could be making it up.
Two Iíve not seen the stills so they could just be a bunch of crap.
You may not believe this but people on this forum will say almost anything to make a point.
I got the best results by trying and seeing what did or did not work.  How did I know they were the best results, my eyes.  The fact that I or anyone examining the still images could determine what they were looking at when it wasn't quite clear before.
You don't get to see those images.  You don't have to believe me.  Of course someone who constantly lies will assume everyone else is lying that is opposition to them.  I get it, trial and error learning completely destroys your ridiculous claim.  Again, your claim, or rather the claim you are hopelessly defending is that you cannot gain an understanding of the shape of the Earth without being told by an expert.  You have expanded that along the way to include almost all knowledge must be gained via experts.  Now you fussed about JJA using photoshop, so I gave my own account of having to learn how to utilize photo editing software with no expert available to teach me.  What methods did I use, basically it was what does this function do to my blurry picture?  Oh the lightened it up, now I can see a better contrast between the thing I'm trying to positively identify and the background, or that function made it worse, so I hit the undo function.  Then I tried another function and it made the edges of objects sometime like more defined, sharper, did this help me positively identify said object, yes then leave it or no then undo.  I may have tried some other tools to make the pixels blend together more to smooth out the image.  The exact names of codecs and functions I used back 16 years ago, a year and a place that I want to forget, isn't something I readily remember.  The point is, I learned it without the use of an expert to teach me. 

Also, what you said to Jack needs to be addressed.  Did you say engineers shouldn't  learn by trial and error?  What drugs are you on?  Just seriously, are you high or joking or mentally handicapped?  Pick one, because that is just...  the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.  That's pretty much what an engineer does.  Design, test, refine, repeat. 
 
I just want to say, you know better yet you continue to say things you know to be wrong.  The very definition of stupid.

So you opened up some stills in photoshop and fooled around blindly for a bit. What do you want a medal?

Engineers trial and error! Engineers like everyone make mistakes but they certainly don't use trial and error. There are laws against that. Engineers unlike you are experts in their field and go about task in a systematic way using proven methods which are the antithesis of your unprofessional fooling around in photoshop. Engineers don't guess when designing a structure or system where a mistake could cost lives.

The real world is expert driven. What you have against that is bewildering. People like you who imagine they can acquire complex skills by fiddling around by trial and error and seriously deranged. Before you know where you are you'll be performing brain surgery through trial and error! Go for it. There are some people around here you could practice on !
So, you have no clue what engineers do.  I do, I am an engineer.  Trial and error methods are part and parcel to the whole process.  Stop speaking about things you have no clue about.  It's quite clear who the deranged one is here.  I spoke about engineering, something I have intimate knowledge about, why are you bringing up surgeons?  Is it because you have nothing but pathetic strawman arguments?  I think so.  I have acquired alot of complex knowledge through trial and error methods, the fact that you are so painted onto a corner that you need to take up the absolutely deranged talking points is telling.  What did I say several pages back about experts teaching knowledge to others?  That is is a huge part but NOT required for all learning. 
One of my former professor'
s engineering mantra again, design, test, refine.  That refine is important, experts, engineers, teachers, etc don't know everything.  Learning from mistakes is progress.  Trial and error is in fact learning from failures and successes.  One of the best ways to learn.  It doesn't always require an expert to hold your hand. 
Again, one more time for the cheap seats, you are showing that you are so emotionally involved in this failure of logic that my recommendation is to go ahead and admit your mistake and stop digging this stupid hole deeper.  It's ok if Jack disagreed with you, it ain't the end of the world.  He was right, you are wrong, it's ok to be wrong. 

17
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

If you were working in the dark how on earth do you know that you were getting the best results!
It beggars belief. Just because you pulled a few frames and fiddled around how do you know the results you achieved were the best achievable?
Getting the best stills from video starts with selecting the best video settings from your camera along with establishing a good work flow. Did you do that? Interlaced or progressive? How about data rate?and codec or did you just guess! Having someone who does not have much of a clue I can only imagine the result. While the stills YOU ended up with may have looked passable according to YOU, for a video expert who knew what they were doing they would have looked a mess especially when starting with pretty average quality video.
To try and prove a point by using personal experience is pointless.
One you could be making it up.
Two Iíve not seen the stills so they could just be a bunch of crap.
You may not believe this but people on this forum will say almost anything to make a point.
I got the best results by trying and seeing what did or did not work.  How did I know they were the best results, my eyes.  The fact that I or anyone examining the still images could determine what they were looking at when it wasn't quite clear before.
You don't get to see those images.  You don't have to believe me.  Of course someone who constantly lies will assume everyone else is lying that is opposition to them.  I get it, trial and error learning completely destroys your ridiculous claim.  Again, your claim, or rather the claim you are hopelessly defending is that you cannot gain an understanding of the shape of the Earth without being told by an expert.  You have expanded that along the way to include almost all knowledge must be gained via experts.  Now you fussed about JJA using photoshop, so I gave my own account of having to learn how to utilize photo editing software with no expert available to teach me.  What methods did I use, basically it was what does this function do to my blurry picture?  Oh the lightened it up, now I can see a better contrast between the thing I'm trying to positively identify and the background, or that function made it worse, so I hit the undo function.  Then I tried another function and it made the edges of objects sometime like more defined, sharper, did this help me positively identify said object, yes then leave it or no then undo.  I may have tried some other tools to make the pixels blend together more to smooth out the image.  The exact names of codecs and functions I used back 16 years ago, a year and a place that I want to forget, isn't something I readily remember.  The point is, I learned it without the use of an expert to teach me. 

Also, what you said to Jack needs to be addressed.  Did you say engineers shouldn't  learn by trial and error?  What drugs are you on?  Just seriously, are you high or joking or mentally handicapped?  Pick one, because that is just...  the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.  That's pretty much what an engineer does.  Design, test, refine, repeat. 
 
I just want to say, you know better yet you continue to say things you know to be wrong.  The very definition of stupid.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: transantartic expedition
« on: July 28, 2021, 12:43:22 PM »
A wild necromancer walked into the forums

19
It would burn him up to know that without the internet and just a hacked copy of a photoshop like software while I was in Iraq, I was able to teach myself a few things to "sharpen" some still frames from some of my drone footage to help identify things.  I learned it by trial and error methods.  Since all I had was the drone video feed hooked to a military issue Sony Handycam and no image processing software.  But I guess there was some magical expert invisibly whispering in my ear on what to click.  Yeah that sounds plausible.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 28, 2021, 10:09:27 AM »
So now I find myself agreeing with Shifter about Timmy being foolish.  The link in the post I replied to was from the Empire state building.  I spoke about it.  But he doesn't ever admit it when he goes off half cooked and stupid.

Red letter day, Shifter my friend, same side for some weird reason (well an idiot with emotional problem but we will just call it weird).  This must be a sign of the end times.

It was bound to happen eventually I guess. Cheers to these end of times. Maybe the next iteration of the universe really will give flat earthers their flat earth lol

Ive read that idiots tend to agree.
That's a possibility, it still doesn't change that the idiot who threw a little hissy fit about a comment on a different photo than he assumed it was, even though it was linked right there in the comment, showed how foolish he was yet again.  It was very amusing.  Please continue to be a good source of enjoyment for us.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 27, 2021, 01:57:57 PM »
So now I find myself agreeing with Shifter about Timmy being foolish.  The link in the post I replied to was from the Empire state building.  I spoke about it.  But he doesn't ever admit it when he goes off half cooked and stupid.

Red letter day, Shifter my friend, same side for some weird reason (well an idiot with emotional problem but we will just call it weird).  This must be a sign of the end times.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 27, 2021, 10:00:34 AM »
True

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it time to reflect?
« on: July 27, 2021, 09:43:15 AM »
Well a different image from a much greater height with a standard lens at that high resolution would be better.  These 360 degree photos distort the image a good bit.

24
OK you would try them all but how would you know HOW to carry them out.

How did you find out how to use your dslr/mirrorless? Or what settings/lens to shoot the moon at so as not to overexpose your images?. How about processing, how did you find out how to do that?

Those are bad examples.  I can tell you exactly how I figured out what lenses and settings to shoot the Moon at.  I took pictures and fiddled with the dials until they looked good. I took a lot of pictures, one big advantage of digital film.

Same with processing. Dragging curves around, trying unsharp masks, clicking buttons.

Nothing there required any expert knowledge from other sources. I didn't need anyone to teach me how to do any of that.

Now other experiments certainly are helped by reading the instructions of experts.  The Eratosthenes experiment is certainly easier to perform when someone explains to you what it is and how it works.  But Eratosthenes thought it up, certainly others did as well, so even there I bet a lot of people could figure out out themselves too.

Most of these experiments just use basic geometry and a little math. I'd say the average high school graduate could figure most of them out if they set their mind to it.
So you open up an image in photoshop and thought you would use unsharp mask right off the top of your head. As a photoshop user and instructor I smell a little rat there. The use of unsharp mask is far from an obvious move. In fact using photoshop flying by the seat of your pants with no help or prior instruction I would say is a waste of time. As is shooting the moon by trial and error. Any sensible person would look it up. f9 125 ish at 600mm or longer if you have it. I suppose it begs the question, just how big is yours?
So you are saying the average person is too stupid to figure out photoshop.  Have you ever done anything on your own, just spent time figuring it out?  I worry for your survival if the internet ever goes down.  I bet you think the food magically appears at the grocery store too. 

25
Notice that when you provide a way for an observation that anyone can do would suggest that the most likely shape of the Earth is spherical, it gets completely ignored.  Notice how the argument has moved to include anything like technology being used is conflate as an expert telling you what to think.  Interesting deflection tactics.

What?
Try reading more slowly, it sometimes helps with comprehension.  If there are any words you need help with just ask.

26
Notice that when you provide a way for an observation that anyone can do would suggest that the most likely shape of the Earth is spherical, it gets completely ignored.  Notice how the argument has moved to include anything like technology being used is conflate as an expert telling you what to think.  Interesting deflection tactics.

27
Just a little info for a curious mind.  Calculus was invented by two people without communications between them at pretty much the same time.  There were some minor differences in method and of course notation but the end result was very similar.  They were trying to answer some questions that trigonometry itself couldn't answer.  No experts in calculus existed prior to that point.  Newton and Leibniz.

You give the impression that it appeared magically out of thin air which was certainly not the case. If you look at the history of mathematics and calculus in particular you will see that there was hundreds of years of groundwork from hundreds of mathematicians before its eventual discovery, which was why it was discovered around about the same time as all the clues were there. All it took was couple of extremely clever mathematicians to use the same clues to make the last few steps.

What is interesting is the HOW. Both Newton and Leibniz most likely had similar source materials to work from, better known as books written by earlier experts in mathematics. Incremental discovery. For example  Arab mathematician Ibn al-Haytham derived a formula for the sum of fourth powers. He used the results to carry out what would now be called an integration. That was in the C11th over 500 years before calculus was 'discovered'

In other words a great example of how experts learn from earlier experts. Discoveries are not made in a vacuum.

Here is a list of some of the books Newton had for bedtime reading:-
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/his-library/books-in-newtons-library
Again, no expert was available in calculus prior to there discoveries.  Using information and then deriving new and unheard of previously techniques is not the same as an expert in the field taught them how to do it.  Of course you would assume it appeared by magic, you seem to not understand the concept of invention, discovery, etc.  The statement once again, for the thousandth time, was you can't understand something without having an expert teach it to you.  That's what you have been defending, it's stupid, it's wrong.  I'd it were true there would never be progress, new ideas, new technologies.  Plus never blindly trust a so called expert, I don't noone should.  But small minded people who can't seem to actually extrapolate what they see around them and gain an understanding will be forever doomed to go nowhere. 
I now am positive the claim of being a teacher was just a lie to try to use it as an appeal to authority for you. 
Also, good comeback on the phone number, I got a good laugh.

28
Just a little info for a curious mind.  Calculus was invented by two people without communications between them at pretty much the same time.  There were some minor differences in method and of course notation but the end result was very similar.  They were trying to answer some questions that trigonometry itself couldn't answer.  No experts in calculus existed prior to that point.  Newton and Leibniz.

29
Average Joe is not going to sail the ocean, put sticks in the ground to measure sun angles across the globe, or measure Earths gravitational constant. Hell he won't even look at the moon and planets thru a telescope. He isn't going to board a flight with Branson or Bezos. He isn't going to interpret satellite telemetry signals, or even view the ISS from the ground. He has to rely on an expert.
You're saying people won't do those things, and yet they do (very few, in the case of riding in an actual rocket, but the rest are more common among amateur enthusiasts). And more importantly: they CAN do those things. And that's really the important thing here that's getting overlooked by you and Tim. It's absolutely possible for someone to discern the shape of the Earth without appealing to an expert - one of the hallmarks of science is how open source it is, in that it is fairly easy to review how others have approached trying to solve and problem and recreate those same steps independently or devise a better way if you can think of one. It's also easier to just ask someone you consider to be an authority on the matter and take their answer at face value. Even more importantly though, it's possible to get an answer from an authority and then, independently, think of ways to test the answer you were given and decide if you feel it is accurate and/or complete, without taking any further advice from that same authority, and arrive at the same conclusion, you've just independently verified something.

I'm not saying you should start construction on your own personal LHC in your back yard to start looking for the Higgs particle or anything like that. But going sailing is a hobby lots of people take up. Looking through telescopes, even more so. The sticks in the ground experiment is laughably easy in today's age where you can Facetime with someone in a completely different geographical region and see instantly how the shadows are different - this might be a great thing to start having kids do in school, frankly. I'm pretty sure Ham radio enthusiasts have bounced signal off the moon before and measured how long it takes the signal to make a round trip - try that with the sun, and you'll discovery pretty quickly that the moon and the sun are not, in fact, the same distance away from the Earth

Where would the folk get the instructions to do the stick in the ground experiment?  In all honesty how did you find out about it? Were you born with the knowledge, did it come in a flash of inspiration or like everyone else did you read about it?
Where did Eratosthenes get the instructions from?

30
Average Joe is not going to sail the ocean, put sticks in the ground to measure sun angles across the globe, or measure Earths gravitational constant. Hell he won't even look at the moon and planets thru a telescope.

There is a huge difference between saying the average Joe won't do something and that he can't do something.

Measuring the Suns angle, determining the gravitational constant, looking through a telescope, all these things are certainly possible for the average Joe. They just have to want to do them, or given the opportunity. I've shown plenty of average Joes the wonders of the universe.

I think it's more than plausible to do enough experiments, by ones own hand to determine the shape of the Earth.

But I'm not sure you can really answer the question in the subject, as everyone is going to disagree on what constitutes definitive evidence.

Say you were serious about doing some experiments or an experiment, exactly how would you go about determining which was the best to do?
That depends on what you are trying to determine/support, who your target audience is, your own level of understanding about the basics of said thing you are experimenting for, how comprehensive you need to make the controls, and the resources you have available.  You don't always NEED some expert to hold your hand.  It helps if you are trying to convince others that do not believe you to have some expert opinion, but it is not completely necessary. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82